Author
Topic: Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview (Read 15357 times)

I've just spotted a short review of 1D X on YouTube where high ISO shot was shown on the camera screen. It's hard to tell the difference between the test shot and today's cameras performance, however if the image was taken at 204k ISO, it looks ok for me:

25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.

Logged

APS-H Fanboy

aaronofnero

25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.

Well, yes, for professional / clean photography that is intended for the commercial and artistic prospect, I can see anything above 6400 ISO being in question. However, for Photo Journalists, I can see 25,600+ being quite useful in situations where you have little control over the lighting. When the story is precedent, and not the quality of the photo, it seems to make sense to me

Logged

Picsfor

25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.

In your perfect world of absolutely clean shots, 51k on a 1DX comfortably matches 6400 on a 5D2. It may even improve upon it slightly.

Whilst i apologise for assuming my comment was worth any merit, it would be wise for you to remember that not all photographers work only in an ideal environment, many us have to take what opportunities we're given and work with them.

Some of us even enjoy pushing our kit to the very limit to see what it is capable of, and see if this gives us a photographic opportunity that would be missed by never going above 800 iso.

My trouble is, i come from an environment where i loaded 3200asa into an A1 then pushed it to 12800 and walked around railway yards at 3am to get hand held pictures at 1/60th with a 50mm f1.8, pictures which are of places that no longer exist. Pictures of people doing jobs and tasks that are no longer done. Yep, they're grainy - but at least they exist- where are the other pictures of those yards, those people, those practices? But best of all, the grain actually gives them some character - as opposed to some of the sterile shots i can get at 25600 with a 5D2.

No, your comment was helpful. I got the message that the 1D X seemed to give the same results at an ISO setting four stops higher - even if some of us apparently were clever enough to post but not clever enough to understand what you meant, that shouldn't stop you from sharing your thoughts.

I would agree though that it would be nice to hear if that works for lower ISO values - i.e. is ISO 51200 about the same?

My trouble is, i come from an environment where i loaded 3200asa into an A1 then pushed it to 12800 and walked around railway yards at 3am to get hand held pictures at 1/60th with a 50mm f1.8, pictures which are of places that no longer exist. Pictures of people doing jobs and tasks that are no longer done. Yep, they're grainy - but at least they exist- where are the other pictures of those yards, those people, those practices? But best of all, the grain actually gives them some character - as opposed to some of the sterile shots i can get at 25600 with a 5D2.

Only a few hours ago I compiled a Facebook album of 7D photos I have just taken back in my hometown, 22-40 years after growing up there and last being at the places I just photographed.

But for some of those places, I also still have digital images of FILM PRINTS I took myself in late 1987 (24 years ago) when I was a teenager, of the SAME places from the SAME angles, for the SAME views. The winter of '87-'88 was a year of record-breaking snowfall in our location, hence the photos taken. (I used an Olympus OM30 to take them, and I have no idea what film.)

So I put the old film images next to the corresponding present-day views in my FB album. I think it adds an interesting touch; I was a teenager then; I'm (early) middle-aged now.

25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.

In your perfect world of absolutely clean shots, 51k on a 1DX comfortably matches 6400 on a 5D2. It may even improve upon it slightly.

Whilst i apologise for assuming my comment was worth any merit, it would be wise for you to remember that not all photographers work only in an ideal environment, many us have to take what opportunities we're given and work with them.

Some of us even enjoy pushing our kit to the very limit to see what it is capable of, and see if this gives us a photographic opportunity that would be missed by never going above 800 iso.

My trouble is, i come from an environment where i loaded 3200asa into an A1 then pushed it to 12800 and walked around railway yards at 3am to get hand held pictures at 1/60th with a 50mm f1.8, pictures which are of places that no longer exist. Pictures of people doing jobs and tasks that are no longer done. Yep, they're grainy - but at least they exist- where are the other pictures of those yards, those people, those practices? But best of all, the grain actually gives them some character - as opposed to some of the sterile shots i can get at 25600 with a 5D2.

Oh, and happy new year

LOL ok I just cant wait to see some real untouched raw files at all ISO then i'll make up my mind what suits me and my perfect world or i could by a 1Dx to impress people on the internet and shoot everything at 204 billion iso and 14fps... ok that was a bit flipant.

Regardless a 4 stop real imporvement in ISO is pretty damn good

On a side note why is every sinlge review (almost) on youtube most interested in the burst rate only? seriously 10fps is fine I cant see 14 FPS helping in do much other than burn your shutter out quicker. probably serious sports shooters are the only people that might get a hard on over that.I would love to see some more thorough reviews.this one is particularly retarded if you can call it a reviewhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg7WDWa_Idg&feature=relatedthe guy is on a serious youtube campaign to get canon to give him a free camera and lots of lenses

Only a few hours ago I compiled a Facebook album of 7D photos I have just taken back in my hometown, 22-40 years after growing up there and last being at the places I just photographed.

But for some of those places, I also still have digital images of FILM PRINTS I took myself in late 1987 (24 years ago) when I was a teenager, of the SAME places from the SAME angles, for the SAME views. The winter of '87-'88 was a year of record-breaking snowfall in our location, hence the photos taken. (I used an Olympus OM30 to take them, and I have no idea what film.)

So I put the old film images next to the corresponding present-day views in my FB album. I think it adds an interesting touch; I was a teenager then; I'm (early) middle-aged now.

Picsfor

Interesting, the first youtube clip was shot whilst i was standing at the counter trying out a 1DX.Whilst they are interviewing the gentlemen who has just bought the 1D4, i was standing behind, to the left of the 2 gentlemen who are located in the right of the frame.

Their interest was very much about the video qualities of the 1DX, and they were happy to pre-order.My interests were very much about the ISO, the focusing & ergonomics.

The Dual CF and Gigabit ethernet ports were very much matter of fact, but holding it and trying it at extremes was what i was about.

In respect of 'why they keep pushing' the 14fps - is because it is a whole new mirror mechanism that is what has facilitated the excellent video moire that they keep talking about. The 14fps is a side effect, but a welcome none the less.

My take on the 14fps is - use it like 204k ISO - when you absolutely have no choice.For wildlife - they will be gone after frame 6, your hands will feel like they're holding a hammer jack after a few seconds. It is noisy and it creates some vibration - but if you have a high enough shutter speed, you will over come it.

As for whether or not i'll get a 1DX, the answer is, i'm already doing my sums and working out what i need to do to get one. 1DX with a 5D2 as a second body should keep me happy for a few years :-)

I still can't believe the 1d X is only two stops better than the mk4, it should at least been three stops, AND the two stops are with in-camera raw-conversion...

First off with microlens on FF. Only a tiny 2mp more than the mk4 with a much bigger sensor and two years of development (I'm guessing 4 years). New processor, and still we only get the same difference as between the mk3 and mk4, and the mk4 was 60% (!!!) increase in resolution on the same sensor, something doesn't add up......

KeithR

I still can't believe the 1d X is only two stops better than the mk4, it should at least been three stops

Why "should" it have been? Sounds unrealistic to me to expect that straight off the camera. Anyway, two stops is pretty spectacular in itself.

As to it "only" being with in-camera processing, I'll bet you right here and now that I can out-process any in-camera jpeg engine, and on that basis I'll bet that closer to three stops is doable with good hands-on conversion and post processing thrown into the mix.

I actually sa a quote saying that it wouldn't be as much as two stops when converted from raw.

Do you think two stops is much when you JUST read my post? Explain that please...

Again, the mk4 and mk3 have the same size sensor, way smaller than FF. So based on previous cameras two stops is what you get from the next generation with the SAME SENSORSIZE. That is NOT the case here. It also states that the microlenses is used for the first time on a FF sensor, which must be to better the lightgathering to each pixel, now, with a fraction higher res, and less than on the 1ds3 and 5d sensor, it seems the microlens stuff could just as well have been skipped. Look at the 5d and the 5d2, same size sensor, no microlens, yet the 5d2 is WAAAAY better at higher iso's AND with nearly TWICE the res.

So I would very much like explained for what reason the 1d X is only two stops better than my mk4 withe the "same" res on a way smaller snesor and being two years older.... And that's just when we jump over the fact that the X sensor has been in the making since the release of 5d2....